Court date pending against Howard

A warrant for Ridgecrest resident William Dale Howard to appear in court following the Kern County District Attorney’s office decision to file a court case is currently awaiting a judge’s signature, according to a deputy district attorney.

Comment

By Jack Barnwelljbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com

Ridgecrest Daily Independent - Ridgecrest, CA

By Jack Barnwelljbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com

Posted Dec. 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM

By Jack Barnwelljbarnwell@ridgecrestca.com

Posted Dec. 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM

A warrant for Ridgecrest resident William Dale Howard to appear in court following the Kern County District Attorney’s office decision to file a court case is currently awaiting a judge’s signature, according to a deputy district attorney.

Deputy DA Scott Garver confirmed Friday that the DA’s office filed a case against Howard on Thursday for 12 violations of section 372 of the California Penal Code and one violation of city zoning ordinance.

A court date is pending the judge’s signature of the warrant and delivery by the Ridgecrest police department.

Garver said 12 lots that Howard owns or asserts control over are in violation of maintaining a public nuisance in regard to an alleged amount of junk on his properties.

“The 13th charge regarding the city municipal code is concerning the peacocks on his property,” Garver said.

Garver said Howard’s maintaining of peacocks violated the city’s R1 residential zoning ordinance. R1, which includes single-family residents, does not permit fowl like peacocks to be kept on the property.

“There has been a lot of complaints in the neighborhood about how loud they (the peacocks) have been,” Garver said. “Nothing in the R1 zoning code allows for the raising of fowl.”

The case is just the recent chapter in a number of legal actions against Howard.

Howard had previously faced 37 misdemeanor counts against him in a different case filed against him on Jan. 29, 2011, following a probable cause report filed in Aug. 2010 by Code Enforcement Officer Bob Smith.

Smith’s report details how many of Howard’s properties violated the state Penal Code and many city municipal code ordinances, including section 20-1.2, which bears the definition “junk yard.”

Howard’s property in the 1100 block of Mayo Street is occupied by several sea van containers.

The DA’s office dismissed the case Aug. 16 of this year without prejudice.

Garver dispelled claims that the dismissal of the charges were a legal win for Howard. The reason for dismissal was due to the case’s age.

“By the time it was dismissed, it was two years old,” Garver said. The makeup of the property had changed and the photos and evidence were outdated.

“We cleaned it up and made some changes,” Garver said.

Initially, trespassing charges had been considered in the current case, both concerning two lots Howard had no authority over but maintained belongings on.

Reports that Howard was clearing things off the lot were confirmed by Garver.

“According to Ridgecrest police, he seems to have made a good-faith effort in clearing his belongs from those properties,” Garver said.

Page 2 of 2 - Moving forward on trespassing charges would gain nothing, he said. However, moving the items only mitigated the problem since the items would just be moved to properties Howard owns.

Howard said he had no knowledge of the new case pending a court date.

“This is the first I have heard about it,” Howard said over the phone Friday. “I haven’t been served with a court date.”

Howard declined further comment on the case.

In addition to the pending court date regarding the 13 misdemeanor counts, Howard faces a civil receivership case filed against him by the City of Ridgecrest.

“We are still going forward with the civil case,” said RPD Capt. Paul Wheeler on Friday.

Ridgecrest filed a civil receivership action against Howard on Sept. 19 per section 17920 of the California Health and Safety Code. The receivership case pertains to 16 properties owned or under Howard’s influence. In addition the case names six other defendants: Dorrance Anne Howard, Betty Joan Whitley, Peter Lam, Mosely Martin and the businesses William G. and Imalda Ivey Trust and Aurora Dorrance, LLC.

Under the receivership action, if the court ruled against Howard, the properties would fall under a court-approved receiver to be cleaned up. Howard would be offered the properties back for the cost of the clean-up fees.

The first hearing for the civil case is set for March 18, 2013 at the Kern County Superior Court in Bakersfield.

Wheeler, who dropped the criminal misdemeanor case on the DA’s desk, said the only objective city had was for Howard to clean up his properties.

“If we can get a conviction, we’re hoping the terms of Mr. Howard’s probation would be to clean up his properties,” Wheeler said.

Until then, the notice to appear still awaits a judge’s signature, Garver said. Once it’s signed, a court date will be assigned.

“Our concern has always been for Mr. Howard to clean up his properties,” Garver said.